AMD gets aggressive
AMD took time at its press conference to announce that the RX480 will be just $199!
At its Computex 2016 press conference in Taipei today, AMD has announced the branding and pricing, along with basic specifications, for one of its upcoming Polaris GPUs shipping later this June. The Radeon RX 480, based on Polaris 10, will cost just $199 and will offer more than 5 TFLOPS of compute capability. This is an incredibly aggressive move obviously aimed at continuing to gain market share at NVIDIA's expense. Details of the product are listed below.
RX 480 | GTX 1070 | GTX 980 | GTX 970 | R9 Fury | R9 Nano | R9 390X | R9 390 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GPU | Polaris 10 | GP104 | GM204 | GM204 | Fiji Pro | Fiji XT | Hawaii XT | Grenada Pro |
GPU Cores | 2304 | 1920 | 2048 | 1664 | 3584 | 4096 | 2816 | 2560 |
Rated Clock | ? | 1506 MHz | 1126 MHz | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz | up to 1000 MHz | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Texture Units | ? | 120 | 128 | 104 | 224 | 256 | 176 | 160 |
ROP Units | ? | 64 | 64 | 56 | 64 | 64 | 64 | 64 |
Memory | 4/8GB | 8GB | 4GB | 4GB | 4GB | 4GB | 8GB | 8GB |
Memory Clock | 8000 MHz | 8000 MHz | 7000 MHz | 7000 MHz | 500 MHz | 500 MHz | 6000 MHz | 6000 MHz |
Memory Interface | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 4096-bit (HBM) | 4096-bit (HBM) | 512-bit | 512-bit |
Memory Bandwidth | 256 GB/s | 256 GB/s | 224 GB/s | 196 GB/s | 512 GB/s | 512 GB/s | 384 GB/s | 384 GB/s |
TDP | 150 watts | 150 watts | 165 watts | 145 watts | 275 watts | 175 watts | 275 watts | 230 watts |
Peak Compute | > 5.0 TFLOPS | 5.7 TFLOPS | 4.61 TFLOPS | 3.4 TFLOPS | 7.20 TFLOPS | 8.19 TFLOPS | 5.63 TFLOPS | 5.12 TFLOPS |
Transistor Count | ? | 7.2B | 5.2B | 5.2B | 8.9B | 8.9B | 6.2B | 6.2B |
Process Tech | 14nm | 16nm | 28nm | 28nm | 28nm | 28nm | 28nm | 28nm |
MSRP (current) | $199 | $379 | $499 | $329 | $549 | $499 | $389 | $329 |
The RX 480 will ship with 36 CUs totaling 2304 stream processors based on the current GCN breakdown of 64 stream processors per CU. AMD didn't list clock speeds and instead is only telling us that the performance offered will exceed 5 TFLOPS of compute; how much is still a mystery and will likely change based on final clocks.
The memory system is powered by a 256-bit GDDR5 memory controller running at 8 Gbps and hitting 256 GB/s of throughput. This is the same resulting memory bandwidth as NVIDIA's new GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card.
AMD also tells us that the TDP of the card is 150 watts, again matching the GTX 1070, though without more accurate performance data it's hard to assume anything about the new architectural efficiency of the Polaris GPUs built on the 14nm Global Foundries process.
Obviously the card will support FreeSync and all of AMD's VR features, in addition to being DP 1.3 and 1.4 ready.
AMD stated that the RX 480 will launch on June 29th.
I know that many of you will want us to start guessing at what performance level the new RX 480 will actually fall, and trust me, I've been trying to figure it out. Based on TFLOPS rating and memory bandwidth alone, it seems possible that the RX 480 could compete with the GTX 1070. But if that were the case, I don't think even AMD is crazy enough to set the price this far below where the GTX 1070 launched, $379.
I would expect the configuration of the GCN architecture to remain mostly unchanged on Polaris, compared to Hawaii, for the same reasons that we saw NVIDIA leave Pascal's basic compute architecture unchanged compared to Maxwell. Moving to the new process node was the primary goal and adding to that with drastic shifts in compute design might overly complicate product development.
In the past, we have observed that AMD's GCN architecture tends to operate slightly less efficiently in terms of rated maximum compute capability versus realized gaming performance, at least compared to Maxwell and now Pascal. With that in mind, the >5 TFLOPS offered by the RX 480 likely lies somewhere between the Radeon R9 390 and R9 390X in realized gaming output. If that is the case, the Radeon RX 480 should have performance somewhere between the GeForce GTX 970 and the GeForce GTX 980.
AMD claims that the RX 480 at $199 is set to offer a "premium VR experience" that has previously be limited to $500 graphics cards (another reference to the original price of the GTX 980 perhaps…). AMD claims this should have a dramatic impact on increasing the TAM (total addressable market) for VR.
In a notable market survey, price was a leading barrier to adoption of VR. The $199 SEP for select Radeon™ RX Series GPUs is an integral part of AMD’s strategy to dramatically accelerate VR adoption and unleash the VR software ecosystem. AMD expects that its aggressive pricing will jumpstart the growth of the addressable market for PC VR and accelerate the rate at which VR headsets drop in price:
- More affordable VR-ready desktops and notebooks
- Making VR accessible to consumers in retail
- Unleashing VR developers on a larger audience
- Reducing the cost of entry to VR
AMD calls this strategy of starting with the mid-range product its "Water Drop" strategy with the goal "at releasing new graphics architectures in high volume segments first to support continued market share growth for Radeon GPUs."
So what do you guys think? Are you impressed with what Polaris looks like its going to be now?
It looks like the RX 480
It looks like the RX 480 probably will not compete directly with more expensive Nvidia parts, which isn’t particularly surprising. Given AMDs drive for multi-GPU support, I am wondering if the idea will be to compete with Nvidia via multi-GPU. A pair of Polaris GPUs can probably outperform a single 1080 and also be quite a bit cheaper. It seems like dual GPUs will be a good solution for VR as long as the software is optimized to take advantage of it.
The idea isn’t to compete
The idea isn’t to compete with Nvidia on the high-end with these Polaris parts. The idea is to offer value to the consumer, provide an entry point into VR that is actually affordable, and yes, take some market share if they can. They are competing on price, not raw performance, with these parts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But for how long? It’s not
But for how long? It’s not like nvidia totally ignores sub $300 market either.
I think RX480 will do well vs
I think RX480 will do well vs Nvidia 1070/1080 the moment it lands in consoles. Hopefully it will not only be PS/XBOX but also fixed hardware Steam Machine.
http://www.hardocp.com/articl
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility/
“In the simplest terms AMD has created a product that runs hotter and slower than its competition’s new architecture by a potentially significant margin.”
Kyle was right all along, GTX 1070 150W, RX 480 150W, much slower performance.
AMD got even the name is
AMD got even the name is wrong. It should be ‘Radeon VR 1080’ if they want to gain market share.
There’s no bad product, only
There’s no bad product, only bad pricing. This is good pricing.
Crucially this should be much cheaper to manufacture than a 1070, so unlike with last gen they can sustain the price advantage even though they’re not hitting the power numbers they presumably wanted.
So AMD fastest card for the
So AMD fastest card for the next 6 month is still the FuryX ?
A card that is slower then the GTX 1070 ?
And AMD best 14nm card is the Radeon 480 and its slower or equal to an old hawaii 290x ?
Did I get all that correct ?
So the $200 Radeon 480 render the r9-390x and ALL $180 to $400 hawaii card obsolete.
Unless AMD drop the price to $180 for a R9-390x .. not likely.
And nvidia just killed the entire fiji line. or will AMD sell the 4GB Fury X for $299 to compete with the much faster 8GB GTX 1070 at $350?
Unless AMD got something hidden, they are about to lose for good the highly profitable high end market.
And for VR, people dont buy a $800 VR headset + $900 PC to pair both with a $199 GPU. This is GTX 1080 land.
This is great news for the $200 GPU consumer market, but bad news for AMD. Because the GTX 1060 is coming…
Wrong on a couple of counts i
Wrong on a couple of counts i think.
Slower to or equal to hawaii 290x , i doubt it . Until its released we won’t know for sure but i think on par with 390x or better. The videocards.com 3dmark leak shows it above 390x and gtx980 and it appears to be a legit leak.
AMD did what nvidia just did, rendered their last gen hi end cards as not a good option to upgrade too now. Doubt you will see people buying 980tis or TitanX cards now that the 1070 is out for less.
Vega is coming and that is the high end replacement/upgrade. The RX 480 is a midrange card and was never promised to be anything more. For the price this will punch well above its weight too.
I agree with you on one thing the VR focus is misguided. Value for money , Dx12 ready card for 1080p high / possibly 1440p high settings is what it is.
GTX1060 is coming .. nvidia attacking the lower end .. just as AMD roll out vega .. watch out 1080 … going to be interesting to watch this unfold.
480 is claimed to be between
480 is claimed to be between 980/970 which is 390/390x performance range.
Vega well that is another 4+months away at least.
480’s performance is still up for a lot of debate, Yes everyone is hyped cause the AOTS thing they did but come on. As bunch of people posted on youtube, they could see a graphical difference between the 2. One was running at higher settings then the other and just me saying that should pretty clear which that one would be and no it wasn’t the AMD side. I would love to see the footnotes AMD would have to provide with that side by side comparison to see what exactly they did, like they did with the fury x vs 980ti ones they did.
Your wish is
Your wish is granted.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/
Vega is coming to compete
Vega is coming to compete with 1080. AMDs best 14nm card is not an RX480 and you know it. They have set out to capture market share in the mid tier sector. They have put a $199-$229 card with the equivalent performance close to a Fury Pro/Nano at that price. This has made quite a few people sit up and take notice in that price bracket and there are more cards sold in that bracket than anywhere else….go ask 970 owners.
The Fury line was an experiment in HBM technology and it has almost dried up in most places for stock so maybe it will be dropped in price when Vega comes out, so what? At least Fury cards will still get good support in 5 years time…unlike Maxwell.
I am also betting that the entry level for VR headsets will come down to compete with PSVR, although not the Vive or Oculus. They aren’t the only ones due to come out, there are lots more coming soon. So this BS about it’s 1080GTX land is a crock of shit. I know a lot of people who are quite happily VR gaming on a 970/980/Fury so now they can do it for a few hundred dollars less. If you don’t see that as a good thing then you are blind.
Lisa Su also said that Polaris will cover the $100 – $300 market…but the RX 480 is coming in at $229 for the 8GB version, so what does that tell us? It tells us that there could very possibly be another Polaris waiting to take on the 1070 at probably the $279-$299 price point.
We were never told which Polaris chip was in the RX 480….what if it was the higher P11 or a lower end P10?
We will worry about the 1060/50 when it turns up….oh when I say worry, I mean we wont worry because it may mean that Nvidia will have to compete on price and that is good for consumers like us. When will some people learn that if Nvidia gain total control then we will continue to pay extortionate amounts for gfx cards with little advancement….same as Intel CPUs. Good start for AMD 🙂
What about 970 owners? 480
What about 970 owners? 480 most likely not the replacement they want. Fury will get 5 years support? If anything the one that actually will drop driver support first will be AMD. We see GCN still get optimization because amd still not moving away from the architecture. Go ask HD4K user how long did it take amd to cut driver support. And nvidia already compete on price. Ever since 900 series. Just that at the same time they still able to play the premium game.
Given that the Oculus Rift is
Given that the Oculus Rift is $600 and you don’t need to spend more than $500 on the hardware to build a VR capable PC around it, your maths is already off by $600.
Perhaps this explains why you don’t see the value in a $200 card for a total cost of $1300 instead of your $2400 GTX 1080 proposal.
Nvidia answer to this will be
Nvidia answer to this will be the 1060
It surely will, and now they
It surely will, and now they won’t be able to price gouge with it either.
I feel sorry for the members
I feel sorry for the members of PcPer who read some of these comments. Would be nice if some moderation could be done to remove all the fanboyism. Why are people so into cheering for multinational corporation is beyond me.
PCPer lets it happen because
PCPer lets it happen because it drives traffic onto their web pages.
seems like amd built a gpu
seems like amd built a gpu for the mid cycle refreshes of the consoles and are now selling them as stand alone. that is the specs of the leaked gpu in the ps4k
The 480 looks like a great
The 480 looks like a great mid-range card with aggressive pricing.
Looking forward to the reviews; hoping it performs just under the 1070 with overclocking headroom.
If so, Raja Koduri will have earned that drink.
i for one think amd is crazy
i for one think amd is crazy enough as they want marketshare! what is the best way to do that undercut competition with a cost effective smaller chip that performs close enough to or better than their $379 part that is harvested from a larger die. 14nm wafers cant be cheep.
Amd hit this one out of the
Amd hit this one out of the park!
The red team has won. That’s
The red team has won. That’s if they don’t screw up, but that’s bound to happen.
Add into the cost another $60
Add into the cost another $60 for active displayport to HDMI adapters again (and poor longevity / reliability of them) If you have a 3 monitor setup with only DVI/HDMI/VGA connectors. Why can’t they release a card with 2 HDMI 2.0 ports, 1 DVI and as many display ports as they’d like? Most PC Monitors still don’t have DP (unless you get a high end / 10 bit monitor) let alone 4K TVs. AFAIK, every Samsung 4K set from 2015 have HDMI ports, not DP.
This is not to insult AMD, but to insult AMD and Nvidia because they are both doing this. I understand it’s cheaper for them since there is an HDMI royalty, but that royalty is nothing compared to the cost of an adapter and the issues it comes with, I’d happily pay the few pennies royalty for something I can actually use today, not 5 years from now, when the card would be outdated anyway.
On another topic, can the 480 do distortion free single card gaming on 3 monitors like the 1080 can?
Why would I buy an active
Why would I buy an active displayport adapter for a card that supports HDMI 2.0 on board?
When I am running from the demons from hell in Doom, the last thing I am worried about is “Ohh are the angles of this corridor trigonometrically perfect on my two outer monitors” FFS.
The 480 probably would be able to do that if it cost another $500
Like Ansel it will probably only appeal to a small percentage of users. Don’t get me wrong..it’s a nice to have. But not at that extortionate cost.
If I had three monitors (Instead of one nice big decent one) then I would angle them slightly better and save $500.
“Why would I buy an active
“Why would I buy an active displayport adapter for a card that supports HDMI 2.0 on board?” Because I have a triple display setup of Dell S2740L monitors that only support HDMI/DVI/VGA, so with only one HDMI output, I’d need 2 adapters for the other two monitors. I have bad experiences with them before, with garbled screens, screens changing resolutions because the adapter is going bad, to outright adapter failure, from cable matters brand to star tech, etc… I can see 3 DP’s in a few years from now, but not today, almost every monitor and 4K TV support HDMI. Shame on both Nvidia and AMD penny pinching on the HDMI royalty which costs people more money and headaches for non DP multi-monitor setups.
One more quick note, the CF
One more quick note, the CF demo of Ashes is misleading, the detail level was lower on the CF setup. And that’s a CF setup. I’m not Anti-AMD, I loved their Athlons and Opertons, I’m just sick of this good enough stuff from them, are they trying to go the way of Cyrix? This is yet another AMD mainstream product that no one wants — like waiting on Nissan for the newest Turbo charged Leaf at an auto show. Yes, some do because it’s cheap, but it’s not. Save the money for the 1080 and amortize over 3 generations and you’ll have a better value over this $200 card. My GTX 680 still works very well, but my issue is the 2GB limitation. If AMD released a similar card to the 1080 or better, then everything changes, this 480 changes nothing other than rendering AMD All Mediocre Devices ever since Hector Ruiz left (ugh, if he only bought ATI at the proper price and kept Keller on for the next chip design.)
Market for flagship video
Market for flagship video cars is a tiny subset of a shrinking PC market. Saying that AMD has to beat/match the 1080 to be relevant is like saying the new Mustang has to outperform Ferrari in order for Ford to have a successful product.
This product is specifically intended to be an affordable entry into the VR market, which AMD sees as an under-served area with growth potential. We are taking about people whose entire system cost under $1000. Hard to do that with a $600 level card. Making an AMD equivalent to the 1080, if they could even do it, does not fulfill the needs of users they are targeting with this product.
But the point is that they
But the point is that they more technologically advanced and produce a better product, from the top HALO card, they create more affordable derivatives. How long did it take for AMD to barely catch up to 970 performance? How much power is wasted over the past few years thanks to AMD and the power consumption their cards draw. Also, the 480 is no Mustang, it’s more like a Turbo charged Leaf that no one wanted. If Ferrari produced more affordable derivatives of their car line, (minus the piss poor reliability) I’m sure they would outsell Ford, however, part of Ferrari’s sales is because most peeps can’t afford them, so it’s not apples-to-apples. more like apples-to-caviar.
So… that means GTX970 or
So… that means GTX970 or anything slower than the 480 is garbage too, right? Clearly nobody wants any of those cards either. Complete garbage consumers refuse to touch. Except for about 98% of the GPU market, of course.
Your argument that nobody at all will be remotely interested in a card that is faster than a GTX970 at $200 seems odd to me when the 970s are still commanding ~$300, even on sale, despite being officially “obsolete” now.
“the detail level was lower
“the detail level was lower on the CF setup”
No it wasn’t.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4m692q/concerning_the_aots_image_quality_controversy/
Yep, AMD just killed the
Yep, AMD just killed the 950/960/970 and maybe even the regular 980. Was expecting maybe $299, but $199 ?!?
That is just straight up batsh1t crazy.
I think it is possible for
I think it is possible for them to have a GTX 1070 at 200 dollars since it’s using a smaller process node, and a Dual RX 480 using 51 percent scaling which is barely any better than 1 GPU being used vs a 1080 and it can run better it might be possible that they achieved close to 1070 performance
I already know a handful of
I already know a handful of people who already picked the RX 480 as their next GPU because the price point, performance, and power usage is just perfect for them.
Personally not in the same boat as I have a 1000W PSU and a Fury X, but I’m really happy to see a sub $200 card that will truly push all games at 1080p/60 FPS max settings.
And if its better than a 390X or in that range then QHD is definitely an option as well.
Man, mid-range GPUs this year are looking super good.. I can’t wait ’til real high end GPUs come out like Vega/1080 Ti.
No real high end GPUs yet… well, other than the high-end-priced-but-mid-range GTX 1080.
Good stuff, lots of cool stuff to look forward to this year.
To those who toy with the
To those who toy with the idea of a 1070 price cut, or the 1060 beating it overall, its irrelevant… Here’s why:
I can’t see myself investing in a non fully DX12 compliant part. Considering that the next time fourfold ( I’ve never upgraded for anything less in 20 years ) increase comes around it’ll be in what, 8, 10, perhaps 12 years baring a groundbreaking revolutionary discovery? It has been 8 years since last time at the 200-300$ pricepoint.
DX11 will be irrelevant in a few years, all consoles are already running DX12-like code, async is getting used more and more according to insider sources. I have to plan almost a decade in advance, in this regard, buying a 1060, or even a 1070 or 1080 would be pointless. And that’s not even taking into account that devs will be used to code for proper DX12 async, so even when they’ll do PC exclusives, it’ll be a habit.
Iows, DX11 is already irrelevant, the upgrade cycles have become way too long for this to not be painfully obvious. Nvidia shot hitself in the foot, big time, and the savvy users are seeing it, Anandtech was the first to point it out, then others tested the more than 4 cores theory and it turned out correct. And its not a driver overhead issue, it has been tested for, Nvidia’s driver overhead is actually better, but software preempt, async “emulation”, is what kills it in DX12 for future proofing.
It probably comes down to something about changing their architecture too much to be on time, or perhaps changing it to be fully DX12 compliant would’ve hurt the clock rate scaling and the perf they could’ve squeezed in this gen in DX11, aka most actual games, out of the die shrink. No matter, for my needs, it was the worst thing they could do.
People act like its not a big deal, it IS a big deal for people who don’t upgrade often, wants future proofing + perf/price ratio.
I wished I could go for a Nvidia part this round, but seems like I’ll stick with team red despite wanting to get back to up to date third party programs like inspector, RadeonPro software is kind of a joke, forcing AA or AO or whatever on AMD hardware right now is a PITA. But sadly, Nvidia fucked up and is really giving me no choice.
The only hope for Nvidia right now if they want savvy PC users money who look to the long term and are set to upgrade this year, is if they actually release a fully DX12 compliant, at least midrange part, that can match the Polaris 10 in perf, at the same price, and perhaps less power usage.
As for me, my wait is over, P10 provides the four fold increase, the power usage is lower than my current GPU, its fully DX12 compliant and the price is right, heck, even lower than my last buy which was more around 275-300$.
All in all, considering all this, it was a very smart move on their part to put the focus on DX12 and async.
Dx11 is irrelevent? You’ll be
Dx11 is irrelevent? You’ll be surprise when there is new game still develop using DX9. don’t look at the triple A stuff only. Look at the whole scene including those indie title. The thing most peoplw don’t understand with DX12 is not meant to replace dx11. It is for those that want low level api. For those that not willing to deal with low level complexity (developer with tight budget) dx11 is there for them to give them high level api. That’s why MS still update DX11 like those FL11_3 which bring similar felature to FL12_1.
As for async compute the feature might not end up being use on pc unless they were sponsored to use it. Some people probably thinking the async optimization on console will carry over to pc. Well it is not. Hitman dev mention that async need to be tweaked per card basis. Go take a look at guru3d recent test on hitman. Even radeon will take performance hit with dx12. And then look at various DX12 title out there. Most often DX12 version of the game have far more stability issues that it’s DX11 counter part.
You’re really telling me with
You’re really telling me with a straight face that in my current upgrade cycle ( the next 8 to 12 years ), DX11 will still be dominant? Yeah… sure…
they will not. but most
they will not. but most likely there will be another high level API that will replace DX11. but DX12 will not be the one that replacing DX11. so don’t expect 2 or 3 years from now most game will be running DX12.
Why the heck would it not
Why the heck would it not replace DX11? Every DX version before this one replaced the one before it and “surprise”, Vulkan, the only DX competitor also uses proper Async and not some software/driver level preempt hack. If you’re referring to resistance to W10 adoption, its a non-issue, as it has been for a DX predecessor came Vista if you remember well, it gained widespread adoption despite it and we’re all running it now.
Not a single thing you said is relevant. Going for a card that supports DX12 and Vulkan and/or the hypothetical DX11.3 Async properly at this moment is the best option for a long-term upgrade, bar-none. And in this regard P10 is the best contender so far in the midrange.
1060 is a short term option at best if it doesn’t support proper Async. If 1160 supports proper Async then it’ll be a good long term option for those set to upgrade in the midrange during 2017, but for now, P10 all the way.
And indie games… be
And indie games… be serious, I haven’t seen a title yet that pushes graphics even just a wee bit ( perhaps there are, I don’t play them ). You can run most, if not all, indie games maxed at 1080p and sometimes 1440p, or even 4k ( or equivalent with dynamic res/downsampling ) in some extreme cases with 8 years old GPUs. Doesn’t matter that they’re DX9-10-11 at this point. It has no bearing whatsoever on futureproofing and what will happen during the next 8-12 years.
As for MS hypothetically updating DX11, it doesn’t matter if Nvidia’s hardware doesn’t support it other than perhaps in software with driver emulation like what’s done in DX12 right now, they’ll still take the same perf hit. And this won’t change with the same hardware 8-12 years down the line.
A lot of people getting
A lot of people getting sensitive.
Let’s face it AMD or Nvidia, what matter is perf and price.
We’ll see then how good is this 480 and if there is a 480X to match the 1070.
Just take what suit your wallet, 200 then 480, 300 and above 480x or 1070, above 1080.
But for most people with 970 980 980ti/Titan or 390x and fury (X) our rigs are not obsolete! And yes if we want something better, 1070 or 1080 is the solution tight now.
I’m still with my 4 years old hd7970!!
But I think it would be better to wait on Vega and 1080ti maybe TITAN (YZ). We’ll get good perf for the money! And something that last!
I think 199 or 230 is a
I think 199 or 230 is a pretty good deal but i wish amd wouldve brought out a 490 instead of the 480. But for i little cheaper than a 1070 you can buy 2 480 8gb’s which is appealing if they have good drivers and no micro stutter. But im getting a evga 1070 because ive always bought evga on the nvidia side and never had any problems. And the new cards match my rig good being black and white.
Nvidia will drop their prices
Nvidia will drop their prices and I bet these wont take it to market at that price.
Anyone know if these cards will work well with revit or 3d studio max to speed up rendering?
If this isn’t UNAMGIUOUSLY
If this isn’t UNAMGIUOUSLY faster than the 390 (which is only ambiguously faster and often slower than the 970), and there will be no 490 out within a few weeks to compensate for it, I’m afraid this new scheme of AMD’s will be a major letdown, at least for anyone looking to buy NOW.
Really ? So what would you
Really ? So what would you suggest I buy ‘now’ for $199 ?
I’m open to suggestions. (As long as it’s not second hand)